Is it me, or does modern Gospel sound like CCM - Black people edition?

... it depends on what "Gospel music" is. If you mean, contemporary Christian music (a.k.a: Christian Soft-Rock), then your observation might be correct.

Gospel Music, historically, involves a singing choir but is very distinctive from other choir singing in that, while both sing hymns, Gospel Choirs are sung very passionately.

I suppose, this is what you call "Black people edition"?

Right, the "Black people" version. Like, if "Christian/Gospel" we're to be broken into it's subgenres, and its not to be confused with "Southern Gospel."

When you say "Black People" addition, do you have a dislike over their music, or the people themselves?

Neither. I'm referring to literal Black people. It (to me) sounds as though Hillsong United wrote a song sung by Tamela Mann. If you take a listen to choir gospel back in the day vs now, there's definitely a difference in timbre. Not complaining, just an observation.

OK, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you telling me that Hillsong, sounded like a Southern Gospel song in terms of BGM used by Tamela Mann, or their song appeared to be written like Tamela Mann (a possible case of plagerism)?

Neither.... I'm saying that a lot of modern Gospel Music and Contemporary Christian Music sound very similar nowadays.

I see. Well, with what you've said, I probably wouldn't like it myself. I don't like the "Over Singing" and the overly emotional aspect of the Southern Gospel genre. I understand the purpose behind it, but it's just not my "Cup of Tea".

Fair

BTW, out of curiousity, are you a Protestant?

A little bit of both. It's more historical than authoritative, according to their beliefs.

Okay, that's what I thought.

OK. You are not wrong, the varience of opinion are expressed with denominations with the mainline Protestants who've become liberal over time ,and Protestants who've kept the core beliefs (Evangelicals).

We are also called Christian Fundamentalists, because like all fundamentalists, we champion the return to the fundamental teachings of scripture. Christian Fundamentlism grew as a response to the decline of churches and the rise of Charles Darwin's Evolution.

Historical Protestants are not liberal, but are as we are now. And, in actuality, Salvation is a processes. Unfortunately, OSAS, or Once Saved Always Saved is a misnomer of Eternal Security. The problem with OSAS is that while Eternal Life is given at the point of Faith, one is not completely saved.

It is therefore a process, but it is not done by us at all, but done by the Savior (1 Corinthians 3:11 & Philippians 1:6).

We are saved, Past Tense, as we're promised and given salvation (deliverance from the eternal consequence of sin. At thast point of faith, we are Justified... declared righteous, on the account of the Son).

We are saved, Present Tense, that Christ is continuing to save us (Galatians 2:20). In saving us, we are also being sanctified (set apart aka, made holy).

And, we are saved, Future Tense, in that He will complete the process and bring us to Heaven (John 6:37-39, Romans 8:11, & Jude 1:24). This is summarized in the following verses; the Calvinists like I called this, the Chain of Salvation:

30 And those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified [declared free of the guilt of sin]; and those whom He justified, He also glorified [raising them to a heavenly dignity].
- Romans 8:30 ESV

I'll restate to be clearer... Fundamentalism is a belief that believers must return oto the core principles. It is not always by scripture, like us.

I guess technically? I just consider myself an Evangelical Christian.

OK, why do you think you're an Evangelical Christian, and to you, what is the differene between it and Protestantism?

I say "Evangelical Christian," because I believe in Christ's virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection, and that we should spread the news about the gift of salvation.

I've heard the word "Protestant" used in different ways, both in type of religion and Christian denomination.

After looking it up, it looks like Protestants have a more fluid view of the Bible, with it conforming to different scenarios as an historical account by God, while Evangelicals hold to the Bible as the absolute word of God that we should live by. Also, Protestants see salvation as a lifelong process, while Evangelicals see salvation as a conversion, which is followed by growth.

Personally, based on my experiences, there is definitely some historical context for these, especially in the Old Testament. But, it is the authoritative word of God.

Did this answer your question clearly? Are you Christian/religious?

OK. When you mentioned "Protestants having a mroe fluid view of the Bible", do you mean that they have differing views of scripture interpretation, or authority?

I am also an Evangelical Christian with respect to the emphasis in evangelism and the return to the fundamentals of the faith. But those fundamentals are Protestant in nature, as it deals with core beliefs in the 4 Soli (Plural form of Sola). Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria